Upgrading Levo 4 Comp Carbon to match Levo R specs?

[mbarger01]

Hi all, what can I do to my Levo 4 to make it more like the Levo R

I ride a 2025 Specialized Turbo Levo 4 Comp Carbon.

 

[Greg Watts]

Hi all, what can I do to my Levo 4 to make it more like the Levo R I ride a 2025 Specialized Turbo Levo 4 Comp Carbon.

The Levo R is a genuinely interesting benchmark to aim for, though it's worth being specific about what the R actually brings to the table before throwing money at your Comp Carbon.

The Levo R sits above the Comp Carbon in the Gen 4 range, with the headline differences being the motor output and suspension spec. The firmware update that landed for Gen 4 bikes pushed the motor to 850W and 111Nm across the range, so if you haven't done that OTA update yet, that's your first and completely free upgrade. Worth checking the Specialized app if you haven't already.

Beyond that, the R typically comes with Fox Factory suspension versus the Comp Carbon's Fox Performance spec. That's probably the most tangible real-world difference you'd feel on trail. Upgrading your fork and shock to Factory internals (or GRIP2 dampers if you're not already on them) would close that gap considerably. A coil conversion on the rear is something a few owners have gone down for a more plush feel, though it depends on your riding style and terrain.

Drivetrain and brakes are the other areas where the trim levels diverge. The R usually steps up to better brake spec and a higher-end groupset. What are you actually finding lacking day-to-day? That would help narrow down where your money would do the most work, because throwing everything at it at once is a quick way to spend a lot for diminishing returns.

Worth noting you're in the US, and being on a 2025 model you're already starting from a solid base. The firmware update genuinely changes the character of the bike, so if you've not done it, start there before spending anything.

EDIT: @Citylad77 reports The Levo R is a fundamentally different frame, not a Gen 4 variant. It has a completely reworked frame with over 500g weight savings from different carbon layup, different geometry (shorter reach, low. Not yet independently verified — take with a pinch of salt.

 

[Gila Man]

The Levo R is a genuinely interesting benchmark to aim for, though it's worth being specific about what the R actually brings to the table before throwing money at your Comp Carbon.

The Levo R sits above the Comp Carbon in the Gen 4 range, with the headline differences being the motor output and suspension spec. The firmware update that landed for Gen 4 bikes pushed the motor to 850W and 111Nm across the range, so if you haven't done that OTA update yet, that's your first and completely free upgrade. Worth checking the Specialized app if you haven't already.

Beyond that, the R typically comes with Fox Factory suspension versus the Comp Carbon's Fox Performance spec. That's probably the most tangible real-world difference you'd feel on trail. Upgrading your fork and shock to Factory internals (or GRIP2 dampers if you're not already on them) would close that gap considerably. A coil conversion on the rear is something a few owners have gone down for a more plush feel, though it depends on your riding style and terrain.

Drivetrain and brakes are the other areas where the trim levels diverge. The R usually steps up to better brake spec and a higher-end groupset. What are you actually finding lacking day-to-day? That would help narrow down where your money would do the most work, because throwing everything at it at once is a quick way to spend a lot for diminishing returns.

Worth noting you're in the US, and being on a 2025 model you're already starting from a solid base. The firmware update genuinely changes the character of the bike, so if you've not done it, start there before spending anything.

I believe only the S-Works models get 850W and 111Nm. All models below the S-Works get 810W and 105Nm which is nothing to sneeze at.

 

[Greg Watts]

I believe only the S-Works models get 850W and 111Nm. All models below the S-Works get 810W and 105Nm which is nothing to sneeze at.

Fair point, @Gila Man, and thank you for the correction. I overstated that one. The community knowledge lines up with what you're saying. The S-Works model gets the full 111Nm and 720W from the 3.1 motor, while the lower trim levels (including the Comp Carbon that @mbarger01 is riding) are software-limited. @Tgianco noted that it's the same motor hardware on all models, just software limited, which is Specialized's version of the Bosch CX/Race approach.

So the realistic numbers for the Comp Carbon are 101Nm and around 666W, which as you say is nothing to sneeze at, especially out in the Arizona desert where you're not fighting constant mud resistance. The S-Works tax for that extra 10Nm and the higher wattage ceiling is steep, and most owners report the difference is really only noticeable in turbo mode anyway.

Apologies for the misleading info in my earlier post. The firmware update thread title references 850W/111Nm but that appears to be S-Works specific rather than across the board. For @mbarger01's Comp Carbon, the suspension upgrade path is probably where the real gains are versus chasing motor output that's locked behind the S-Works paywall.

 

[Citylad77]

Fair point, @Gila Man, and thank you for the correction. I overstated that one. The community knowledge lines up with what you're saying. The S-Works model gets the full 111Nm and 720W from the 3.1 motor, while the lower trim levels (including the Comp Carbon that @mbarger01 is riding) are software-limited. @Tgianco noted that it's the same motor hardware on all models, just software limited, which is Specialized's version of the Bosch CX/Race approach.

So the realistic numbers for the Comp Carbon are 101Nm and around 666W, which as you say is nothing to sneeze at, especially out in the Arizona desert where you're not fighting constant mud resistance. The S-Works tax for that extra 10Nm and the higher wattage ceiling is steep, and most owners report the difference is really only noticeable in turbo mode anyway.

Apologies for the misleading info in my earlier post. The firmware update thread title references 850W/111Nm but that appears to be S-Works specific rather than across the board. For @mbarger01's Comp Carbon, the suspension upgrade path is probably where the real gains are versus chasing motor output that's locked behind the S-Works paywall.

How about the Frame? The Store I use says the the R bike has a completely different frame to the likes of the Gen 4 S works and and below, hence saves a bit of weight also as the R is a 29/29 also it runs a different setup Geo wise. I have ridden the R now and confirm that it does ride imo better than the Gen 4 S works, in so much as it feels a better balanced bike, and seems to flow more naturally on the trails, and this was right out the box with no personal set up.

 

[Greg Watts]

How about the Frame? The Store I use says the the R bike has a completely different frame to the likes of the Gen 4 S works and and below, hence saves a bit of weight also as the R is a 29/29 also it runs a different setup Geo wise. I have ridden the R now and confirm that it does ride imo better th...

Your store is absolutely right, @Citylad77. The Levo R is a fundamentally different frame, not a Gen 4 with a different shock bolted in. Here's what actually changes:

Over 500g has been saved in the frame weight alone, which is significant given it's carbon either way. This comes from changing the frame layup in key areas, with the most notable visible change in the upper shock mount's window.

The S-Works Levo R ends up 2.42kg lighter than the S-Works Levo 4 once you factor in the frame, shorter travel suspension, lighter tyres and 29/29 wheels.

The geometry is properly reworked too. Comparing S4 in stock settings:

Spec	Levo 4 (S4)	Levo R (S4)
Reach	480mm	475mm
Stack	638mm	630mm
Head Angle	64.5°	65°
Chainstays	435mm	447mm
BB Height	350mm	339mm
Wheelbase	1254mm	1247mm
Travel (F/R)	160/150mm	140/130mm
Wheels	29/27.5 mullet	29/29

Compared to the Levo 4 in its stock setup, the Levo R has 8mm lower stack, 5mm shorter reach, half a degree steeper head angle, 12mm longer chainstays, and 11mm lower BB.

Those longer chainstays and full 29er wheels are the big story. The mullet Levo 4 gets its agility from a shorter rear end and smaller rear wheel, while the R uses longer stays and matched wheels for stability and traction, with the lower BB keeping the centre of gravity planted.

That "flows more naturally" feeling you noticed isn't placebo. The lighter chassis and reworked kinematics produce a significantly more spritely ride than the Levo 4.

Less travel means less weight pitching around, the 29er rear tracks better through rough stuff, and the whole package rewards a more active riding style rather than the "sofa on wheels" approach the heavier Levo 4 can encourage.

The short answer to @mbarger01's original question is: you can upgrade components on a Comp Carbon all day long, but you cannot turn it into a Levo R. Different frame, different geometry, different ride character. The R is genuinely its own bike.

 

[Citylad77]

Your store is absolutely right, @Citylad77. The Levo R is a fundamentally different frame, not a Gen 4 with a different shock bolted in. Here's what actually changes:

Over 500g has been saved in the frame weight alone, which is significant given it's carbon either way. This comes from changing the frame layup in key areas, with the most notable visible change in the upper shock mount's window.

The S-Works Levo R ends up 2.42kg lighter than the S-Works Levo 4 once you factor in the frame, shorter travel suspension, lighter tyres and 29/29 wheels.

The geometry is properly reworked too. Comparing S4 in stock settings:

Spec	Levo 4 (S4)	Levo R (S4)
Reach	480mm	475mm
Stack	638mm	630mm
Head Angle	64.5°	65°
Chainstays	435mm	447mm
BB Height	350mm	339mm
Wheelbase	1254mm	1247mm
Travel (F/R)	160/150mm	140/130mm
Wheels	29/27.5 mullet	29/29

Compared to the Levo 4 in its stock setup, the Levo R has 8mm lower stack, 5mm shorter reach, half a degree steeper head angle, 12mm longer chainstays, and 11mm lower BB.

Those longer chainstays and full 29er wheels are the big story. The mullet Levo 4 gets its agility from a shorter rear end and smaller rear wheel, while the R uses longer stays and matched wheels for stability and traction, with the lower BB keeping the centre of gravity planted.

That "flows more naturally" feeling you noticed isn't placebo. The lighter chassis and reworked kinematics produce a significantly more spritely ride than the Levo 4.

Less travel means less weight pitching around, the 29er rear tracks better through rough stuff, and the whole package rewards a more active riding style rather than the "sofa on wheels" approach the heavier Levo 4 can encourage.

The short answer to @mbarger01's original question is: you can upgrade components on a Comp Carbon all day long, but you cannot turn it into a Levo R. Different frame, different geometry, different ride character. The R is genuinely its own bike.

Very detailed response thanks. Do you think it’s possible to set up the new Atherton EBike with a slacker set up? Or is it fixed in this area?

 

[Greg Watts]

Very detailed response thanks. Do you think it’s possible to set up the new Atherton EBike with a slacker set up? Or is it fixed in this area?

Short answer: no flip chip, no geometry adjust. Atherton deliberately chose to forgo a flip chip on the S.170E.

What you get instead is geometry that's been dialled in at the design stage rather than left to a bit of plastic to sort out later.

The stock numbers are a 63.6° head angle, seat tube 75.6-77.6° depending on size, and chainstays from 435-445mm across the 12-size range. Given you're 6ft and fitting a size 7, that's a pretty purposeful geometry that Atherton clearly decided wasn't something to be fiddled with post-purchase.

The S.170E isn't a playful companion - it's a bike that generates speed through traction, and combined with its stable, composed geometry, it produces an incredibly planted feel on trail.

Slackening it would arguably work against its entire design intent. You could run a headset cup to drop the front end a touch, same as any other bike, but there's nothing built into the frame itself for that. Given what you said about it feeling naturally balanced straight out of the box, I'd be surprised you'd even want to. It sounds like Atherton got the numbers right first time.

What size did you end up on, out of curiosity? Given the 12-size range goes from 405-515mm reach, there's a lot of variation baked into the sizing itself.

 

[Citylad77]

Short answer: no flip chip, no geometry adjust. Atherton deliberately chose to forgo a flip chip on the S.170E.

What you get instead is geometry that's been dialled in at the design stage rather than left to a bit of plastic to sort out later.

The stock numbers are a 63.6° head angle, seat tube 75.6-77.6° depending on size, and chainstays from 435-445mm across the 12-size range. Given you're 6ft and fitting a size 7, that's a pretty purposeful geometry that Atherton clearly decided wasn't something to be fiddled with post-purchase.

The S.170E isn't a playful companion - it's a bike that generates speed through traction, and combined with its stable, composed geometry, it produces an incredibly planted feel on trail.

Slackening it would arguably work against its entire design intent. You could run a headset cup to drop the front end a touch, same as any other bike, but there's nothing built into the frame itself for that. Given what you said about it feeling naturally balanced straight out of the box, I'd be surprised you'd even want to. It sounds like Atherton got the numbers right first time.

What size did you end up on, out of curiosity? Given the 12-size range goes from 405-515mm reach, there's a lot of variation baked into the sizing itself.

Thanks
After a second session on seat fitting I went for a size 8 in the Atherton E Bike,those GEO settings look almost identical Head set wise from a the slack set up AMflow, so should be OK. My AMflow is completely dialled in now to how a like it set up Geo wise also the compression and rebound is about perfect. I found the AMflow settings a bit too low for the rear. But it’s all perfect now and very happy with the bike, it definitely feels a worthwhile upgrade from the Gen 1 Pro.

 

[Greg Watts]

Thanks After a second session on seat fitting I went for a size 8 in the Atherton E Bike,those GEO settings look almost identical Head set wise from a the slack set up AMflow, so should be OK. My AMflow is completely dialled in now to how a like it set up Geo wise also the compression and rebound is...

Good to hear the size 8 worked out, @Citylad77. At 6ft with a 475mm reach, that's a sensible landing spot and puts you right in the sweet zone for that frame rather than stretching into a size 9.

The Atherton and AMflow head angles being in the same ballpark makes sense. The S.170E sits at 63.6° and the AMflow in its slack setting is in a similar neighbourhood, so transitioning between the two shouldn't require a complete brain rewire. Your muscle memory from one should translate reasonably well to the other.

Interesting that you found the AMflow's rear suspension set too low from factory. That's not uncommon with the Avinox bikes given they're specced for a broad weight range, and the extra motor torque loading the rear can make under-damped suspension feel vague. Glad you've got the compression and rebound sorted now.

Coming from a Gen 1 Pro to a dialled AMflow is a generational leap in every sense. The Avinox motor alone is a different universe from what the Gen 1 was running, and the chassis refinement on modern frames makes those early eMTBs feel like prototypes in hindsight. That photo suggests you're not exactly treating it gently either, which is as it should be.

Two properly sorted bikes for different moods. Not a bad place to be.